Talk:Languages of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Creole

I can see on the primary language bar that Portuguese and Portuguese Creoles are counted as the same language, but French and French Creole are not. Why is that? kcar1986 00:34, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the deal about Portugese/Portugese Creole, but the "French Creole" listed is Haitian Creole, which is really a separate language in its own right.

It's just the way the U.S. Census Bureau collates the language data. It is self-reported, but before the Census Bureau publishes, they make categories like "Portuguese and Portugese Creole." That is by far not the worst one. Others include "Other Indic languages" "African languages." Haitian Creole gets its own entry not because the Census Bureau has decided it is its own language in a way that Capeverdean Creole is not, but because there are more speakers of it. The census language data are quite imperfect anyway, as they are based on sampling data. Satyadasa 07:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

recent-immigrant lang

We could use something on recent-immigrant languages, especially current usages (much Korean, Cantonese, and Russian, for example, in NY); I should probably add a bit about Yiddish, among other things. Amish and Native American languages, probably belong in separate articles. Vicki Rosenzweig

About the official language in the USA

I don't quite understand that the English is not an official language in the USA. What this really means? I do believe that almost all official documents and such are written in English. Can someone explain this a little bit more? I can't imagine if I'll do much with swahili or with some more exotic language in public. And I get almost a petty nausea when I saw for example John Wayne speaking German in almost all German and Austrian TV's. And after all you can speak swahili in my homeland too, if you want. And it is quite a fun. Many African students are still studying in Ljubljana and they learn some Slovene. The most famous of them is Ignacio Bintchende aka Janez Belina (English John Whiteness). He also had some (let us say) neo-nazi incidents. After all do I live in a free country far away from mother Africa, where a word nigger can be heard many times - even in public politics? :-) Best regard. -- XJamRastafire 18:03 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

It simply means that the United States does not have an officially decreed language that must be used. English is certainly the most common, but millions of Americans live their lives speaking other languages.

In general, you are supposed to speak English to be naturalized as a citizen, but even that isn't a rigid standard. Here is a summary of the requirements:

A person must also demonstrate an ability to speak, read, and write ordinary English and have a general understanding of U.S. government and history. Long-time older permanent residents are exempt from the English requirement if they are 50 years or older and have been living in the U.S. for at least 20 years, or if they are 55 years or older and have been living in the U.S. for at least 15 years. These immigrants must still demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and government, but they may do so in their native language.

Native-born Americans are not required to speak English in most places, although it is certainly handy!

Some US states have an official languages. In New Mexico both English and Spanish are official languages, although New Mexicans say the state does not always live up to its ideals in this regard. Ortolan88

Yes Ortolan88 now I got a picture. The most important thing is, as I understand, that a language is not decreed. Nice law. I know how hard it is for two different nations (or even more ones) to live together. I can here for example recall Austrian politician Jörg Haider, who will do anything even nowadays that two peaceful nations won't live together in a small region. I can imagine similar problems all over the world. So in this case States can be beautifull example of living together. Thank you very much for the explanation. -- XJamRastafire 18:45 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

---

• Does Congress have a procedural rule on the language which must be spoken in debates? If not then how is the official record kept?
• Do the federal courts have a law on one language for the officials of the court. If not how is justice seen to be done? Philip Baird Shearer 21:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin advocated German? This is the same Benjamin Franklin who complained about the Pennsylvania Germans because they were germanizing their neighbours instead of anglicising themeselves? -stoltz. (although it could be true...Franklin may have suggested the use of German, I don't know?)

"Benjamin Franklin advocated the use of German as the official language of the United States, marking a break from the language spoken by Great Britain, against which the newly-formed United States had recently rebelled."

I moved this to talk because it is inaccurate. Here [1] is a Straight Dope column to this effect. It wasn't Ben Franklin, and they weren't going to make it the only official language - they were just going to translate govdocs into German.Montréalais

Is it true that a vote was carried out after the War of Indeendence to decide on which language (French or English) should be the legeslative language?

language spoken in immigrant communities

I removed the section on language spoken in immigrant communities but are not considered indigineous because that clause doesn't make any sense. Chinese isn't any less indigenous to North America than English.

linguistic homogeneity

I removed this sentence: " Any other large nation in history had this linguistic homogeneity," because it just doesn't ring true. Think of China, the history of the North and South American continents, pre-'Discovery' Australia, the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire, the English empire, and on and on. Atorpen 04:15 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. Would it even be going too far to say, "No other large nation in history has had this level of linguistic homogeneity"? -- Oliver P. 04:20 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

China? From Chinese language: 'The notion of a "Chinese Language" may seem at first to be a fiction. The term "Chinese" is employed for the classical written language known as "wen2 yan2 (?? "literary language")" which was used by Confucius, as well as the modern standard known as "bai2 hua4 (?? "vernacular")". It includes many different spoken variations which may be mutually unintelligible. The spoken language of Beijing is for example very different from Cantonese, the conversational language of Hong Kong'.

North and South American are continents, nor countries. Also, some small countries in Latin America as Bolivia have three official languages (and so much not officials).

In the same, the Soviet Union, the Roman Empire and the English empire were all empires, no countries. All of them were multietnic and multilingual.

The pre-'Discovery' Australia? From Australia: some of the surviving Aboriginal communities maintain their native languageS

Well, in Australian Aborigine, somebody wrote It should be noted that there were many different Aboriginal groups, with their own languages, cultures and beliefs which overlapped to a greater or lesser extent, and evolved over time.

And Brasil?

The English empire *was* North America. it only became multiethnic later when it became the British Empire. -- Derek Ross ??

Many different ethnic groups were present in N. America before the British crossed the Pacific. Please dont forget about them :) Cheers! - Ish ishwar 22:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In México they speak 62 (61 plus Spanish) languages right now, babies. (source).--196.40.40.179 03:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

ASL

Why isn't American Sign Language listed in the commonly used languages at home list? From what I've read, it's the third or fourth most spoken language in the United States, so I would guess they speak it at home too.  ;-) --Chuck SMITH

Grimes (2000) reports that ASL is signed by 100,000-500,000 Americans (out of a 2 million population of deaf persons), and Hawai'i Pidgin Sign Language by about 6,000 (almost extinct). Martha's Vineyard Sign Language is extinct (formerly signed in Massachusetts).

Many deaf people learn ASL in school, and their parents don't necessarily get very good at it. Sibs tend to, though. Otherwise they may use home sign. But many are brought up with an 'oral' education, and don't get exposed to ASL until adulthood. The majority of native signers are the children of Deaf parents, most of whom are hearing. Perhaps the lower end of the speaker estimates is closer to the number of home signers, with the higher end being daily users? So while the numbers for ASL would go up if you consider daily rather than home use, the numbers of other languages might go down. kwami 18:38, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

British ancestors

I removed the statement that 80% of Americans have no British ancestors. In the last census, 33% reported British background and since most respondents only listed one ethnicity, a primary one, than a far higher number have some British ancestors. Possibly even 80%? ;) Rmhermen 14:15, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

The 33% figure you cite is only accurate for *white* Americans. Key distinction there. The percentage of all Americans, in the 2000 census, who listed "American" ancestry along with those who listed British, English, Scottish, Scotch-Irish or Welsh ancestry, is about 22%. See British Americans.

33%? Hah, remember, 'British' is not an ethnic group. People of English origin are the highest in this collective ethnonym, accounting for 8.7% of the population. 80% is an absurd percentage as well. What makes us so sure that those who reported 'American' all derive from British forefathers? I'm taking a good guess that the majority of those who answered 'American', located in the midwest and other densely populated central intersections are of Scandinavian or German origin. Eric 05:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Can't remember the ref, but there are maps showing county-by-county ethnicities, colored according to plurality (largest minority) ancestry of those who declared an ancestry. The impression you get from such a map is that the vast majority of the country is either English or German in origin. That is, those two colors are spread over the entire country, with many small-town areas being almost exclusively so, whereas other ethnicities tend to be geographically concentrated. But of course you can easily be the plurality of a county at only 10% of the population. kwami 18:45, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I don't know what percentage of the population of the United States has no British ancestry, but I do know that the largest ancestries in the United States are German and Irish. As such the majority of the population is certainly not of British ancestry, as there are at least two larger ancestry groups. Furthermore, it is very likely that the pluralities you saw on the map were in fact far less than 50% that the population. Furthermore, counties in the US vary dramatically in population. Los Angeles County, California, for example, has millions of residents (nearly 10 million), while Loving County, Texas has only 67. The largest counties in terms of area also tend to be in rural areas with low populations. Most of what the map you saw says it that rural areas in the United States tend to be more populated by people of German and/or English ancestry. Also, I would like to sign this post with my IP address, but i am unsure of how to do so. If there's anyone who reads this who knows how, it would be greatly appreciated if you could leave a comment instructing me how to do so.

This entire argument is absurd. German-Americans, British-Americans, or Italian-Americans or Korean-Americans for that matter, have not been endogamous. The ancestry that people report in the census, whether they report one or multiple ancestries, is self-reported, subjective, and limited in accuracy. A majority do not know all the parts of the world their ancestors came from. By this point, the majority of those with German ancestors also have British ancestors. The majority of those with British ancestors also have German ancestors. One could say that perhaps 80% of the population of the United States does not have a plurality of British ancestors, but that is equally meaningless. Satyadasa 10:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Parliament myth

I removed this bit:

In the late 19th century a voting took place in the Parliament, regarding the selection of the country's official language. English was the winning language, with Greek language having received just one vote less.

since it appears to me to be apocryphal - the popular urban legend.

I heard it about German, rather than Greek, losing by one vote. This has at least a little more basis in fact, but the situation as stated is incorrect according to Snopes ([2], [3]).

If somebody can substantiate this "fact" (for starters, give an exact year), feel free to put it back. Until then, out with this junk. -- pne 10:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello Parliament we do not have one in the US.

I fail to see why people take this so seriously. As far as I know, this urban legend stemmed from the fact that the US legislature had issued orders after the American revolution to have their documents translated into German. Eric 05:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

Some African-American activists insist that Ebonics, also known as African-American Vernacular English, the dialect of English spoken in many African-American sections of American urban areas, is not simply a dialect, but an entirely different language, and are urging that their language be accepted as an equal to American English.

I want to see some actual evidence for this -- which African-American advocates, for example, and when? I know linguists have been arguing that it's a valid dialect, and not just "bad English" forever, but -- well, what does it even mean, "accepted as an equal to American English." And if it is a dialect, then it already is American English by definition -- it's just not Standard American English. I'm not sure the above isn't just a kneejerk to some media claptrap.--Peccavimus 08:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's a great deal of debate about Ebonics in the Black community. I don't know of anyone who claims it's a distinct language from English in the linguistic sense. Rather, they're using 'language' in the generic sense, because the word 'dialect' is pejorative in lay usage.

(Not many people speak of the 'standard dialect', rather they speak of 'dialects' vs. 'proper English'. There's also a long tradition of assuming that if you speak a 'dialect', it's because you're mentally incapable of expressing yourself 'properly'. Because of this, calling AAVE a 'dialect', especially if you're White, can cause offense.)

The problem Ebonics is trying to address is that if you don't recognize that kids come to school without a command of standard English, and address that fact, they will be disadvantaged later on. And if you simply tell them they have bad grammar and their families don't know how to speak properly, the educational results tend to not be very good either. Those in the Ebonics movement advocate the recognition of AAVE as a valid variety of English alongside the standard dialect. What this means in practice is that you give the kids' education a bi-lectal approach: "This is how we say X at home, or when writing in your journal, but this is how you need to say it when you're writing formally." You have school materials in both. Not parallel text books, of course: most material will continue to be in standard. But some material should be in AAVE too, such as story books and poetry, to show kids that their language (meaning the way they speak) is given validity by the school. There is some evidence that such an education makes it easier for kids to code switch, able to do well in a job interview without being ostracized from their peers for being snooty. That is, well educated without suffering an identity crisis. (No parent wants their child to grow up without a command of standard, but neither do they want them to be alienated.)

Explaining all this in the popular media can be problematic, especially when the word 'dialect' is out of bounds (not only for causing offense to Black people, but because most White people won't understand what it means). That's why it's often called a "language". However, if you ask people if they mean that AAVE's a separate language the way Gulla is, they'll say of course not, it's just a variety that needs to be recognized for the good of our kids. kwami 20:27, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

my commentary

Hi. I have a few comments that I hope everyone will consider.

I find this article to rather ethnocentric regarding its marginalization of the languages indigeneous to N. America. These languages are only mentioned very briefly at the end of the list of languages. This is unfortunate, especially considering the past and continued marginalization of these speakers.

These languages, I feel, should be discussed first in the article, if only as a kind gesture. These languages have been spoken in the territory of the US longer than any European language has been spoken in Europe, expecting Basque. The linguistic diversity in just California alone is far, far greater than the diversity in Europe. This is something to marvel at. The US language situation is unique because of their existence.

There is a sad history involved as well, which may make authors reluctant write about: the systematic efforts to eradicate these languages.

I guess the current organization & content of this page has been influenced by the more economically powerful language speakers.

I was just thinking that an article titled "Languages in the United States" would be more about the languages in the United States both time immemorial and newly-arrived. Peace - Ish ishwar 07:59, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

English only

I added the word "only" to the box on the upper-right corner because that is what the 82.105% statistic from the census actually refers to. In other words, 82% of Americans *only speak English* at home. That is different from the percentage of people who speak English at home. (THAT percentage is a good 10-15% higher.)

native langs: first or last?

hi. I suggest that the indigenous languages of the US be listed before the languages that came later rather than listing the more prevalent and/or economically powerful languages first. This will do 2 things (1) be chronological time-wise and (2) list these lesser known languages more prominently. I feel that (2) is important considering that they are endangered, not known by many general readers, and are still marginalized in many different ways in wikipedia &elsewhere.

I suppose that many others have an opinion about this. Please voice them. Thank you. — ishwar  (SPEAK) 21:27, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

You are merely a propagandist. Indian languages have no status at all in the USA and are significant only so long as the Indian reservations have any influence. Those are sovereign nations and NOT what we call American. I am no more a Sioux than they are Americans. You are treading on thin ice and should be grateful that they are even listed here. Keep these languages where they BELONG, which is on their reservations or minute communities. I myself have listed German before Spanish, because of the timeline of American assimilation over these peoples. In no way, were Indian tribes a part of the US before Louisiana. See what I mean?

posted by ScapegoatVandal (talk · contribs), 00:05, 29 May 2005 (sig added by — mark ✎)

Ignore the unsigned troll above... and, while I have no especially strong opinion on this, I find the chronological argument to be fairly compelling. - Mustafaa 01:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ishwar and Mustafaa. — mark ✎ 01:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the chronological argument too, pre-colonial langauses should follow directly after the section on the official language--nixie 02:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with the proposal, to list the languages indigenous to the region/country before, or at least more prominently than currently featured. Reasons include: the reader might commonly come across this page in search of them; a chronologically-based ordering is usual in the absence of some other schema (eg alphabetically); there is a ranking side-list by number of speakers anyway; historical listing is more informative and if done could assist a future addition to the page describing the interactions and spread of the differing languages over time; as they are comparatively little-known, but feature significantly in conducted linguistic research their prominence needs to be more than just an addendum. --cjllw | TALK 08:19, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Yes, I think official and national languages (read "English" in this case) should come first, indigenous languages second, and immigrant languages and local developments such as creoles third. Also, within the indigenous languages, I think Hawaiian should go last. It's mentioned as an official language, so it's not like it'll get lost, and it's both rather recent historically (as a Usonian possession, I mean, not as a language) and rather marginal geographically ("marginal" in the literal sense of "at the margins"). It seems wrong to place it before Iroquois or Algonquian. Speaking of which, are we going to recognize Samoan? Chamoro? American Samoans are citizens in all but name, and the Marianas (incl. Guam) are clear Usonian possessions and will probably soon be upgraded to commonwealths. Maybe the division could be Continental languages and Pacific languages or something along those lines? kwami 07:29, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be in agreement, and no one's commented in the past week, I've made the change. Ishwar, was this what you had in mind? I broke things up a bit: if we have a separate entry for every single colonial language, I figured we should have separate entries for at least the more populous native languages. (I also tried to research the numbers a little better, using the resources listed at the bottom of the article.) Also, I listed official languages of the territories and commonwealths, and created a new category for languages that developed here. Not saying this is how it should be, it's just what made sense to me, since no one else had gone for it. kwami 21:44, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

yes, i think that this an improvement — more informative. so, yes, it is basically what i had in mind. one of these days i will need to locate the most recent article by Michael Krauss (or some other linguist) to report further on the endangerment issue. peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:16, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

I hate the way this looks so retarded. I warned you the first time. It is too PC. ScapegoatVandal 02:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ummm, hey guys, I'm kind of new, so I won't take any sides, but I want to voice my opinion. The preservation of Native American languages is vital, I agree, but they are far too numerous and varied. I don't know anyone who would bother taking the time to list all of them. I think a simple solution would be to just link to the Ethnologue entry for the USA. Eric 05:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Chinese language census

Says the 2000 census was printed in "Chinese". Anyone know if that's Mandarin or Cantonese? (And no, the written languages are not the same.) kwami 05:53, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Cantonese. Of the 1.65 million reported daily speakers of "Chinese", 1.3 million of them actually converse in Cantonese, specifically. The rest are made up of people who prelect in Han(Mandarin) Chinese, Hakka Chinese, Min Nan Chinese, Yue Chinese, Hokkien Chinese, etc. They constitute a much smaller composite. Eric 06:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I knew that most Chinese Americans were Cantonese, but it didn't follow that the census would be written in Cantonese. (BTW, Mandarin is not the same as Han.) kwami 08:57, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Got word back from someone in the census bureau that they've "been told" that the forms were in Mandarin. (Traditional characters.) Unless someone has specific info to the contrary? Meanwhile I've made the change. kwami 18:31, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I wonder whether kwami or Eric speaks any kind of mentioned Chinese casually. When I traveled to Singapore from Taiwan, I spoke Min Nan Chinese (which Singaporean says it is Kokkien. Malaysian-Chinese decendents call it Kokkien too)to an India-Singaporean taxi cabbie. The Cabbie answered me with three languages: English, Min Nan Chinese and a little Hakka. (I believe he speaks Indian and Malay too). Min is ancient name of Hokkien (now Fujian Province).

Min Nan is southern part of Min. Thus Min Nan and Hokkien map to the same language.

If what Eric outlined Yue Chinese implied the language spoken in Eastern China region(Shanghai, Suzhou, and Hangzhou), that probably is a decent description. "Yue" is ancient name of Zhejiang Province of China today. Yet, language from those three areas are completely illiterate to regular Mandarin Chinese speakers. BTW, Han Chinese is vague to me. If it implied Chinese pronounced in ancient Chinese (Han Dynasty, 202 BC to 220 AD), that can be found just in Korean or Japanese of Hanzi (Kanji, Japanese, means Chinese characters) part.

Try "google search" for "Map of Seuol" you will find Kangnam-Gu (In Mandarin, Jiang-nan Qu, River-South District. Three Chinese characters all in all). Kangnam-Gu in Min Nan Chinese or Hokkien Chinese are exactly the same. Other districts like Kangbo-Gu, Dongjak-Gu, and Kangdong-Gu are pronounced exactly the same as current Min Nan Chinese (all Taiwanese called it Taiwanese in Taiwan). Those places names in Seuol Korea are Han Chinese pronunication indeed.

Kangnam-Gu (Korean or Min Nan Chinese) in Onn-yo-mi (Phonetic pronunciation) of Japanese would become Kou-nan-ku, which may derived (actually imported) from ancient "Yue" language.

Once I used Min Nan Chinese to read Tang Poems (Tang Dynasty, 7th-9th century)to a visitor from Los Angeles, who is a Vietnamese-Ameican. He echoed me the same Tang Poem with Vietnamese where at least 80% was literate to me, and vice versa. We exchanged several other famous poems and concluded the same feeling. Could I suggest Vietnamese Chinese is another kind of Chinese? [Vincent Wen-Sen Tsai, or Wen-Sheng Cai, July 24, 2006 ]

Dutch-Americans

I have written the 'Dutch-American' section, taking the historical notes from the article "Dutch colonization of the Americas", while writing the rest myself. Contributions welcome. Eric 07:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Swedish-Americans

As with naturalized Dutch-Americans, I have also written the Swedish-American sub-article. Additions are encouraged. Eric 07:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

German-Americans

There were some incorrect statistical information which I replaced with confirmed and accurate demographic facts. Eric 07:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

American spelling?

Is there any strict unwritten constitutional rule that we must adhere to American lexicon and spelling? Someone frequently keeps morphing my British spellings with American ones. Eric 07:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Usually if an article is started with one orthography, that is kept through all edits. Also, if an article's specifically UK- or US-related, people tend to feel it should be in that orthography. Though, personally, I think the humor articles should be "British humor" and "American humour". kwami 09:02, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I feel inclined towards British spelling most of the time. In reference to your corcern about the spelling of 'humor', isn't the British spelling 'humour', in actuality? Eric 10:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the beauty of it ... Cbdorsett 15:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to adhere to the American style of semantics and spelling in subsequent edits. :) Eric 15:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

re humour-humor: yes, that's funny.

re my personal note: i dont have any problems with mixed language variety styles in any writing. seeing both British & American spelling in the same article is fun for me. (standardized languages... oh well) peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:27, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Me either. For some words I don't know which is which; I just set my spellchecker to accept both. But if our goal is to make Wikipedia respectable, each article should probably follow some standard. kwami 05:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Immigrant languages

Where did the author obtain the numbers for immigrant languages? The table in this very same article said that Vietnamese is spoken by 0.385%, Tagalog by 0.467%, while Korean by 0.341%. Yet the section on immigrant languages list Korean as being spoken by 1.8 million while Vietnamese by 0.8 million, and Tagalog not listed. See Language Spoken at Home (U.S._Census) and [4]. If there is no information to back this up, I'm going to change it according to census data. DHN 01:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Edited to reflect census data [5]. DHN 01:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Immigrant vs. Colonial languages

As currently structured, this privileges a view of U.S. history that treats the English- and Dutch- speaking Atlantic colonies as the central narrative to the exclusion of Spanish and French colonies incorporated into what is now the United States. Finnish and Scottish Gaelic are allowed because they were spoken early in New Sweden and on the frontiers of British North America, respectively, but Tagalog is not, despite Filipino presence in New Spain as early as 1587 (a landing in Spanish ships at Morro Bay, California) and, in 1763, a permanent settlement in French Louisiana. Similarly, Galician was almost certainly regularly spoken within the frontiers of the present-day U.S. - in Nuevo Mexico before Welsh. I propose an alternate division—aboriginal languages, followed by earliest known communities speaking that language by century, starting with the 16th, if, that is, the language is still spoken in the U.S. today. No need for Old Norse. Satyadasa 08:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this may be a good idea, except that I see no reason to ignore a language because it's no longer spoken. If it was notable for its time, we should have it.

The change wouldn't be very great. Colonial would simply be up to the time of independence. However, Tagalog still might not be included, because it wasn't spoken in what was then US. kwami 06:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The USA have no official language, sorry have two official languages...

Quote 1: "The United States does not have an official language" Quote 2: "both Spanish and English have the status of official language" So?--196.40.40.179 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting that from? The U.S. definitely does not have an official language at the federal level. At the state level, it's a huge mess, though many states have adopted English as their official language. --Coolcaesar 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Louisiana have any official languages?

See http://www.louisiana.gov/wps/portal/.cmd/cs/.ce/155/.s/3987/_s.155/1135/_me/1135-1133/_mc/3313 - You'd think if Louisiana had an official language, it would list it with its official songs and bird and dog and flower. I'm going to edit out Louisiana from the list of states and territories that are officially bilingual. If someone can provide a citation for official languages of Louisiana, please re-list it. (Note: I don't edit much, so I hope nobody thinks this is rude... If so, sorry. I'm only editing to be cautious.) Bugmuncher 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually no. Government web sites (US or otherwise) almost never list official languages. I forget where this info came from, but it was the same source as all the other states. Maybe the World Almanac? kwami 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

Hey, it seems that multiple sections, including (but not limited to!) the Sign languages section need quite a bit of expansion. I've tagged the sign languages section as such, but lots of these sections look really short, and while we don't need to make them particularly long, more than just a sentence or two might be beneficial. --T. S. Rice 07:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say this article need general wikifying more then content changes. 須藤 05:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Article cited by academic publication

This wikipedia page was cited by an article in a current academic journal: Ross E. Mitchell, Travas A. Young, Bellamie Bachleda, Michael A. Karchmer. How Many People Use ASL in the United States? Why Estimates Need Updating. Sign Language Studies 6.3 (2006) 306-335.

The authors discuss the lack of reliable data on the number of ASL users and the widely disparate estimations made on the web (100,000 to 15,000,000). They conclude that no reliable estimate of the number of signers exists, and that most estimates can be traced to two unreliable studies in the 1970s. This wikipedia article, when it was accessed by the author (November 9, 2004), suggested that ASL ranked somewhere between 3rd-most and 10th-most used language in the USA.

Hugs to the contributors to this page! :) ntennis 04:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

official language

this article has somewhat of a different list to English-only movement which says that english is official in hawaii, louisiana and new mexico (along with hawaiian, french and spanish respectivly) - here its 'hawaiian english' not english, it says that louisiana has no official language & new mexico isnt listed). Also Alaska is mentioned there as having the "1998 Official English amendment was overturned" and is not listed as having english as an official language --Astrokey44 11:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

German as Pennsylvania's "second official language"

Removed from the article:

"German, although not widely spoken, was the second official language of Pennsylvania until 1950, and"

As far as I can determine, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has never had an official language at all, thus certainly can't have a second one. I would be thrilled if it were true, but apparently it is not. Facts:

• The US census of 1790 found that 25.45% of Pennsylvanians were of "German nationality".
• A Library of Congress exhibit claims that, in 1790, 33% of Pennsylvanians spoke German. This seems to be the maximum proportion of Pennsylvanians who ever spoke German.
• A bill to establish an official language passed Pennsylvania's house in June, and was referred to the Senate's committee on state government. It would seem clear that there is no official language currently.
• My searches at state.pa.gov found no establishment or repeal of an official language of Pennsylvania. It would seem clear that there was never an official language.

Was the writer's intent simply to claim that Pennsylvania had a significant proportion, or at least a significant number, of German speakers until about 1950? I don't know. The burden of proof is not on me. Certainly the German language is significant in Pennsylvania's history, but this is not the right way to say it, and probably not the right place to say it. Unfortunately the "second official language" claim has already spread to the article on Pennsylvania. --Hoziron 15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

4.7 million German speakers?

Where does this article get its statistic that 10% of German-descended Americans are able to speak German? Even if this includes every person who studied the language for one semester in high school, I doubt the number could be that large. Does it include every G.I. who learned a few curse words while stationed in Germany? This may sound sarcastic but it's not. I speak German and rarely meet another German speaker in the States outside my own family: outside of a smattering of Lutheran churches and a few university Goethe houses, the language barely survives at all except in Pennsylvania. Durova 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm... from the US Census??? It's what we call a home language mostly, that is, nowadays it is typically spoken by adults with their elderly parents. I'm sure that the number of German speakers in the US will probably have been more than halved by the next census. --Node 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaelic

The map purporting to show the distribution of Scottish Gaelic actually shows (if its title is correct) the distribution of Irish Gaelic. Angr 07:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

...or else it's supposed to show Irish Gaelic. Gàidhlig probably wouldn't have many North American speakers outside Nova Scotia, though. It's more likely to be Gaeilge shown on the map. -- the GREAT Gavini 15:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagalog

Why isn't Tagalog mentioned in either colonial language or pre-colonial language sections. It had speakers living in Lousiana during the colonial era and it became an official language in the Commonwealth of the Philippines, a former territory of the U.S..23prootie 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per reasonable request, no objection. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Languages in the United States → Languages of the United States – Naming conventions, consistency -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support per nomination. -  AjaxSmack  05:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• No opposition. -Will Beback 06:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. It is a matter of no importance at all. —Angr 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dakota Language

It says there are 16,000 speakers in the US, but on the page Dakota_language it says there are 1,000 in the World!!! 72.160.238.109 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

@ 2003:C7:5F00:C100:A885:571A:DFCB:3E3E (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

foreign?

the labelling of 'foreign' languages is a bit complicated? In what sense is Spanish 'foreign' and English 'domestic'? Spanish has been spoken longer than English in parts of the US. --Soman (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. There's a hidden comment clarifying that as, "Languages primarily LEARNED by Americans as a foreign language", but that is only visible to editors; perhaps that should be made more visible by creating a Notes section in the infobox using the available extralabel and extra parameters. Alternatively, perhaps there's a better solution using the available minority and immigrant fields. See Template:Languages_of. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this makes no sense. First of all, Spanish and French and no more 'foreign' in the US than English. All 3 languages are non-native and all have been spoken as primary languages in the U.S. since its founding. Secondly, as Wtmitchell points out, this is not a list of 'foreign languages', but an original list of the non-English non-signing languages that are most commonly taught in American universities. Not only is this original research (the list at the cited source includes signed languages), but it is hardly important enough to include in the infobox. For most people this entry is just going to cause confusion, as there is no way to know that it is something completely different than the label without seeing the HTML comment. I'm going to remove it for now. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Map

Greetings all. I've been going through the section on states that do and do not have English as an official language. I've added several sources, a little text, etc. However, I noticed that the map included in the section, where states are shaded different colors, incorrectly identifies Massachusetts as a state with official English. I've removed the image until someone with better image-editing skills than I can fix that error. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

According to http://www.us-english.org/view/364?state=MA, Massachusetts enacted official English legislation in 1975. a link on that page points to http://www.us-english.org/view/394, which says "Recognized by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Commonwealth v. Olivo (1975)". I see info about that case at http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=MACASE&cite=337+N.E.2d+904, which includes

An official order to vacate written in English only and received by a Spanish-speaking occupant of an apartment unable to read English, served in hand by a constable, was constitutionally sufficient [70]; a statement in the order that noncompliance would result in penalties as provided by law gave fair warning of criminal penalties,

and

A governmental policy of sending notices in English only, placing the burden of having the notice translated on persons not literate in English, and conviction of such a person for failure to comply with an English-only notice, do not violate the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [72-73]

and

2. The first question reported by the judge asks whether a Spanish-speaking person who is unable to read English can be convicted of the crime of refusing to comply with a written order, where that order is written entirely in English. In light of the fact that the second question addresses the constitutional issues raised, we construe this question to ask whether the statute, G.L.c. 185B, § 20, allows a conviction in these circumstances.[fn3] We believe it does.

[...]

3. The second question asks whether it would violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution to convict a Spanish-speaking person who is unable to read English of the crime of failing to comply with a notice written entirely in English. We think it would not.

I'm not a lawyer, but that reads to me as if the Mass SC has judicially legislated approval of English as an official language of government in the state. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This issue was discussed at the Massachusetts article, where it was decided to list the official language as "None, English de facto." The discussion can be found here, it's worth taking a look at. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the actual situation here is too complicated to be expressed without distortion by asserting that English is or is not official in Massechussets. See footnote 11 on pages 14-15 here -- the bit about Mass. is on p. 15). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism for lack of citation about information given on Germany language in US

One reason for this decline of German language was the perception during both World Wars that speaking the language of the enemy was unpatriotic; foreign language instruction was banned in places during the First World War.

There is no citation for saying German was largely spoken in Pennsylvania and the Midwest until this time. The Amish spoke it back then and still do and thy are in Pennsylvania most. They generally get categorized as an ethnic/cultural group separate than Americans of German ancestry though. If the perception of it being an enemy language - and it was for those who still spoke the language, the language would have likely diminished before the 1950's. The Germanophobia against Germans began in WWII and education and newspapers in German were shut down. Still though, many Americans of German ancestry lost the language naturally prior to and about the time of WWI because they had generations there and they lived in communities with Americans who weren't of their background.

Also, how is saying the demise of agricultural sociologically explaining the diminishing of a language? The person didn't even try to elaborate and there is obviously no citation. Why would it matter if it were pre-WWII or postwar farming techniques? Many of these areas like Nebraska are still agriculturally dominated.

However, in recent years, immigration of highly skilled Germans to the US has picked up to some degree.

Where'd this information come from? Someone's dream? Please give an article of some sort. The only people I ever met from Germany in this country were those married to American soldiers or tourists. I'm not saying there aren't a few. But to say it has picked up without citation is a leap of a statement. Especially considering the US is in a bad recession.

There is also no citation to claiming there was a third wave of German immigration. This wave couldn't have existed because the National Origins Act of 1924 restricted the number of immigrant arrivals so tightly that it would have been impossible to categorize as a wave. Unless of course people want to revise history and pretend that the act never existed which would be typical thing for Wikipedia writers to do.

How are you going to say the German language is being taught less and less? The language was literally at a near zero point during the two-world war's and the anti-German sentiment carried after WWII. If anything, the language has slightly increased in popularity with universities offering more options and Rosetta Stone and Live Mocha via the internet making it so accessible to learn.

Tom 65.32.185.72 (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico

Can anyone verify the status of English and Spanish in New Mexico? The New Mexico article appears conflicted on this: the infobox says English and Spanish, but the article text says it has no official language but provided for bilingual government briefly. Looking through the state constitution on Wikisource and elsewhere on the Internet (did they get a new one in 2007? that's what it looks like. anyway...), there's no mention of an official language; I don't know if it was legislation rather than part of the constitution. The PDF that's linked as a source specifically says that neither language is official, and I would question the admissibility of the NMCTE page(it says New Mexico is "the only state in the USA that is officially bilingual") and the "All About New Mexico" page (it's just kind of sketchy). Sectori (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have searched the New Mexico laws and constitution, and there is NO official language in New Mexico. The myth that English and Spanish are state official language stems from the fact that as a condition for statehood, New Mexico demanded and got a provision that Spanish be given the status of a temporarily protected language for a limited period of time, which has since expired.

I don't know how to change the table, but someone who does should change the New Mexico entry to remove English and Spanish as official languages. That will make it conform to remarks on the rest of the page, which clearly state that the state has no official language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jquinn77 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

How many languages spoke in new mexico 47.145.113.54 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Speak American WWII.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Speak American WWII.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

• Rodriguez, Lori. "TRANSLATING A NEED / Language barriers / Immigrants see English as vital, but work, family limit time to learn." Houston Chronicle. Monday September 18, 2006. A1. Retrieved on December 30, 2011.

Here is info from the 2000 census:

• Speak English only: 216,176,111
• Top foreign languages (no. of speakers, % of them who say they speak English "very level)
  • Spanish (32,184,293, 52%)
  • Chinese (2,300,467, 45%)
  • French including Cajun and Patois (1,383,432, 78%)
  • Tagalog (1,376,632, 67%)
  • Vietnamese (1,142,328, 38%)

WhisperToMe (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bogus assertion

"United States holds the world's fifth largest Spanish-speaking population, outnumbered only by Spain, Mexico, Colombia and Ecuador. "

Oh really ? So Ecuador ( pop 15 million ) has more Spanish speakers than Argentina ( pop 40 million ) ? Doubtful !Eregli bob (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What about...

Languages of the United States or languages spoken by people resident in the United States? Unless the languages in question enjoy continued usage as a community language through intergenerational transmission they can hardly be considered Languages of the United States. What about Latin, Old English and Klingon? Someone somewhere in the United States can speak those too. 79.236.209.60 (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty clear about what it covers. It's not going to be changed; it could be moved, if you had a proposal on where to move it that others agreed with. Your definition is pretty limiting. Yes, Latin, Old English and Klingon can be spoken somewhere in the US, but not as a language at home (which is what most of our data covers) and I'm sure by any means of counting Old English and Klingon are not on the charts. If you have information on fluent Latin speakers in the US, it would make an interesting addition to the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

keyboard layout is not a language

It's frankly silly that there is a section for common keyboard layout in the information box for this article.Some might debate whether writing is itself a language, or merely a means to record language... but none could reasonably maintain that a keyboard layout is a language. If this is included, we should by extension include:

• Most popular brand of pen
• Commonly used computer programming languages
• Fonts
• Duck whistles

zadignose (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

True. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition in lead

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Introductory text, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." I realize that the usual definition style (e.g. "The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution...") might not be quite appropriate here ("Languages of the United States are several human systems of communication that exist in a federal republic between Canada and Mexico..."), but it should be possible to define in the first paragraph what the scope of this article is. In particular, since the article is not (only) about English and US official language policy, those should not be the first two sentences and virtually all of of the first paragraph of the lead section.

The MOS also suggests that lead sections should generally be only about four paragraphs, but with such a broad topic, this article may well need something a bit longer. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

I was going to copy edit this paragraph, as something has clearly gone wrong in the grammar, but then I could find no support for some of the assertions in the paragraph, and I could find no relevance in the end of the paragraph, so I will simply cut it:

"From the 1920s to the early 1950s, a dozen radio stations broadcast in immigrant languages (notably Yiddish for European Jewish immigrants in the Eastern seaboard), but was curtailed by the Great Depression (1930s), then the US government during World War II and came to an end in the late 1940s. Global radio waves on shortwave radio can broadcast in any language and today the internet offers a wide variety of media streamlinked in every major language to the USA and everywhere.[citation needed]"

Problems:

1. ... but was curtailed... (there's no clear subject... perhaps "this practice" was curtailed).
2. ... then the US government... (extends the problem... probably meant to say that the broadcasting of immigrant languages was curtailed by the US government).
3. facts: apparently the 1930's to the 1950's has been referred to as "the Golden Age of Yiddish Radio," and this is precisely the time period that our article claims that this broadcasting was in decline, was curtailed, and came to an end.
4. I can't find any source relating to government efforts to curtail immigrant language radio broadcasts, though it wouldn't surprise me if there were restrictions on Japanese and German broadcasts... that's not clearly indicated here, nor is it relevant to a general discussion of Languages of the US
5. The final assertion about the wide variety of internet radio stations from around the world which are available in the USA and everywhere is not supported and is not relevant to the article.

zadignose (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation

There is a problem with the citation about the Cambodian/Khmer language link (citation 34). Can anyone fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.207.109 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Blue language distribution maps.

No key is provided, nor any clue as to what the data displayed actually is.

Does an indigo section mean that the majority of people speak language x in that state? A larger proportion than in other states? A majority of the United States speakers of said language are found there? What? I have no clue. Better maps may help an awful lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.10.2 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Illegalized languages

Without citing supporting sources, the article speaks of "... English-only laws that, for example, illegalized church services, telephone conversations, and even conversations in the street or on railway platforms in any language other than English, until the first of these laws was ruled unconstitutional in 1923 (Meyer v. Nebraska)." The linked WP article says, "Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that a 1919 Nebraska law restricting foreign-language education violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." The assertion that church services, telephone conversations, and even conversations in the street or on railway platforms in any language other than English were illegalized, and that the illegalizing laws have been repealed or otherwise rendered inoperative needs to be either supported or removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Official language status section and its table

This edit caught my eye. The edit summary said, "Official language status: On English First, it's written that Louisiana adopted English in 1811, same thing for 3 more states. http://englishfirst.org/d/states". The edit changed content prior to the table saying "out of 50 states, 28 had established English as the official language" to say 31 instead of 28.

No supporting source was cited and I wasn't sure what "On English First" referred to. Some googling turned up this web page on http://englishfirst.org which says, "30 States Have Made English Official (28 Still Have Laws in Effect)", so I reverted that edit.

Having done that, I looked at the table and noted that it asserts that 31 states with English as an official language. The three states listed differently are

• Alaska, which the table lists as Yes even though noting "1998 law ruled unconstitutional in 2008." The English First list (call that "EF" here) says, "Alaska (overturned)".
• Kentucky, not listed by EF. The table cites [1998 law ruled unconstitutional in 2008. this] 2011 source in support. I got a 504 error trying to access that URL but found a recently archived copy here (call that "LP" here) which says that FKentucky has a 1984 Official English statute. Some further digging turned up KRS 2.013 State language (current through the 2014 Regular Session [6]) which confirmed that English is the official state language of Kentucky.
• Massachusetts, which the table lists as Yes even though noting "Since 2002, 1975 law ruled unconstitutional." without citing a supporting (and, one would hope, clarifying) source. EF says, "Massachusetts (overturned)". LP doesn't list it.
• Oklahoma, which the table lists as YES while noting "since 2010 ..." and citing several supporting sources. EF doesn't list it. LP says, "Oklahoma (2010) – constitutional amendment"

At this point, I am a bit confused. I see that the table in this section is maintained separately, as {{Official languages of U.S. states and territories}} and that it is transcluded by the English-only movement and List of official languages by state articles in addition to this one.

I may or may not try to do some editing in the table template. Whether I do or not, though, I suggest that a note be added to this article disclaiming that the table which it presents here is maintained separately from this article and may differ in detail with parts of the article outside of the table. Alternatively (perhaps better) a disclaimer to that effect could be placed in the table template. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

English IS the official language of the US

Taken not by government fiat by an act declaring it so. But by common practice and having virtually all it's founding documents written in English, English is indeed the official language. --196.210.235.212 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

But that sounds decidedly *un*-official, since it is not *officially* declared so, and bills to declare it one have been presented but never passed. There is no universally agreed definition of ‘official language’ which agrees with this. As such, Wikipedia can’t take sides. Of course, elsewhere Wikipedia certainly does describe the overwhelming extent to which English is used in the US, but it can’t say that the language is official, even if this is a technicality. Wikipedia runs on technicalities. Harsimaja (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Subsection on English

The Subsection titled 'English' under the 'Main Languages' section says "all but 57,097,826 of U.S. residents speak English 'well' or 'very well'" and claims the U.S. Census as the source. At best, this is misleading. The Census only asks about people > age 5, yet this seems to be including *all* of the people below age 5 among the 57 million. What the U.S. Census actually says (https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf, Table 1) is that 230.9 M out of 291.5 M over age 5 speak *only* English at home and 77.6% of the remaining 60.6 million speak English either 'well' or 'very well'. That leaves only 0.224 * 60,577,020 = 13,569,252 residents over age 5 who don't speak English 'well', 'very well', or exclusively. 13.57 million is a very long way from 57.10 million. Vbscript2 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Spanish

That section reads that large numbers of non-Hispanics are learning Spanish due to its presence in the US. That assertion, being partly right, is also simplistic. Sure there are other reasons to learn Spanish. Spanish is not only spoken widely is the US. It is also a world language. In fact it is the most spoken language in the entire Western Hemisphere and the second most spoken language in the world after Chinese in terms of native speakers. It is about time that Americans begin to realize that simple fact with the full perspective. If you add to that that Portuguese and Spanish are two extremely similar languages, with communication being relatively easy among speakers of both languages, the resulting Portuguese-Spanish supra-linguistic community begins to even threaten Chinese supremacy. In sum, the importance of Spanish goes far beyond the US number of Hispanics and so it should be indicated in the article and the fact that Spanish is being learned more and more in the US and anywhere else because it is also a world language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:50B4:F449:9CAF:80A (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed your additions to the article as Original Research and Synthesis. You need to find published reliable sources that actually make the claims, not just provide unrelated facts from which you draw your own conclusions. Also, Vandalism has a specific meaning on WP, (such as this edit made by an IP from the same location as you) and labeling edits made in good faith as vandalism is making personal attacks, which is not allowed. - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your conduct can be regarded as vandalism. I have provided sources, one from Fl. University. That is my two pennies for the article. With bad faith users like you Wiki is a loss of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.103.222 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is English WP. I know it's currently the largest WP by several million articles, but since Spanish is a growing World Language, it should catch up to En.wp eventually. Spanish WP is less strict about using reliable sources that actually support the points being added, and about sources in general, so you should enjoy it there. Hopefully your Spanish is better than your English. - BilCat (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

My Spanish is perfect and my English, German, French, Italian and Portuguese probably better than your English. Someone who can see sources and deny them at the same time with lame excuses, someone who probably only knows English while using infantile linguistic ad hominem attacks, describes him or herself. Enjoy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.103.222 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not denying your sources, but they don't support you conclusions. Find a reliable published source that actually says that students in the US are learning Spanish because it is growing world language. I'm not sure what you think were "infantile linguistic ad hominem attacks", but it's irrelevant to your following English Wikipedia guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have provided sources. You still insist with childish arguments. Spanish is the most popular second language in American schools and colleges, it is the most spoken language in the Western Hemisphere and the second most spoken language in the world in terms of native speakers, after Chinese. Everyone with some linguistic education knows that, even the British: https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/languages-for-the-future-report.pdf And you insist that Spanish is not popular in the US Education System because it is not a world language! As said, enjoy your pyrrhic victory, genius! I have a life. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.103.222 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's Synthesis, because you are taking two facts to make a new conclusion not stated in those sources. It's far more likely that Spanish is popular as a second language in schools, as it has been for many years, because of the close location of Mexico and the fairly large number of Spanish speakers living in the US. Does the fact that Spanish is a "world language" have an effect? Probably, but we can't state that as a major reason without citing a specific source that actually states that conclusion. That's not a "childish argument", but Wikipedia policy. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of living languages

According to source 4 on the notes list, which is the ethnologue.com website, Grimes 2000, their are 430 living languages in the United States, found on table 7.Carissaw921 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sign Language

Sign language varies depending on where a person is in the world, should be added to the sign language section.Carissaw921 (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's because there are different sign languages in the world. It's not really a point that needs to be made here, as the article is not about sign languages in general. Also, please post new topics at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

notes section

number 7 in notes section does not work, needs updating Carissaw921 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tagged it. In the future, you can just add {{dead link}} at the end of the reference, inside the closing ref tag. - BilCat (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bengali vs Other Indic

I've reverted this edit, which added an item reading

11. Bengali – 800,000

below "Other Indic Languages", which is entry number 10 on the list. This additions moved all the following entries down one notch.

I have not checked the various sources cited in support of the addition, having noted that the list in the article is introduced as, "According to the American Community Survey 2011, [...]. I note that that cited source ([7]) says at one point, "'Other Indic languages' ((languages such as Punjabi, Bengali, and Marathi) [...]"

Perhaps some rewriting is indicated here; or perhaps not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some rewriting is needed. It is confusing to list "other" before specific alternatives. Punjabi, Bengali, Marathi have their own places, and therefore should not be examples of "Other Indic languages" - I assume that what was meant that they are meant as examples of "Indic languages", not as "Others". TomS TDotO (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Official

Can we come to an understanding on what is the official language of the US? This has been changing in this article without end. Is it English, American English, none, none except in some states, or ...? TomS TDotO (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the article related to this continue to be made (one recent change by me). I suggest that the article's "Official language status" section should lead off with an assertion about what the official language status is. Perhaps with a lead sentence in the section something like, "There is no official language at the federal level for the United States. Although the most commonly used language is English.", perhaps citing this in support. Mention might be made in that section (with an appropriately dated {{as of}} template) about the history and the status of legislative efforts to change this (e.g., [8] and [9]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My comment came before your change. As far as I am concerned, your change is the best solution, but I realize that others may differ. But whatever decision is made, can we try to put an end to it, by putting a comment to the effect that "this represents the consensus, and don't change it without first discussing it on Talk." TomS TDotO (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Main immigrant languages

Are there significant numbers of immigrants who speak English? TomS TDotO (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably many. Note that some will speak it as a second language and some as a primary language (for the latter just count the number of immigrants from mostly English speaking countries such as Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). There may be some statistics somewhere if you want to find and add them. What are the most common immigrant languages changes over time. --Erp (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That is what I am thinking. But, given the lack of information, we should not be saying that English is not among the "Main immmigrant languages". I propose adding "other than English". TomS TDotO (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a US census news item which indicates half speak English well. I'll note this includes immigrants and also people temporarily residing in the US such as students. The full report indicates about 15% of those who are foreign born speak English at home and 50% speak English at least "very well". --Erp (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I am going with this to add English as the first language in "Main immigrant languages". It says that about 15% of the immingrants speak English at home, which is certainly more than the proportion which speak Mandarin (Chinese). TomS TDotO (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

English, Spanish and French are already listed in a section above "Immigrant languages" there is no need to repeat it again below. All three are also colonial languages so they count as "indigenous." Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I note that you have "compromised" by accepting English, and adding Spanish and French, so there is nothing under dispute here. I just wanted to note that German, which has been in this list, is also a language which was spoken in the area which was to become the USA, so it would also count as "indigenous". But I want to make it clear that I am in full agreement with the present wording. Thank you. TomS TDotO (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually we seem to have a cacophony of items in the info box whose definitions might not be clear. I might suggest under "Main Languages" listing only those with at least 1% of the population speaking it. Main Immigrant Languages should probably be Main Current Immigrant Languages. I would also probably drop the keyboard bit. Regional Languages looks a bit confusing. Some of these are languages of US controlled lands that are not part of the 50 states (plus DC) such as Puerto Rico, the Caroline Islands, etc. Some are the languages of reservations. I'm also inclined to drop everything from the info box except Official Languages, Main languages, and Main sign languages. In the body have tables detailing languages plus numbers and indigenous languages plus numbers (or extinct) and where they are primarily spoken, current immigrant languages plus numbers. --Erp (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

All 20+ official languages of Alaska and the Hawaiian language qualify in the strictest sense as regional languages. The others are debatable. Putting only languages with over 1% of the population would leave only English, Spanish and Chinese. With the size of the U.S. even 1 million speakers is just 0.3%. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced edit by User:Roger 8 Roger on 4 February 2018

This edit is a fairly clear violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR -- no source at all. Please review the difference between de jure and de facto. "Official" connotes de jure. Not de facto. Not that hard. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

As long as this claims that Nepali and Welsh are "Main languages" of the United States, and Cherokee is not indigenous but has a whole section while Navajo is barely mentioned, there is no way this mess is NPOV. 184.101.141.29 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are valid points. Why not make those edits/removals (with full edit summary) of POV material? An "NPOV" designation must come from an admin, however. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Every time someone tries to make the changes, it is reverted with "go to talkpage". So -- here I am. Tag stays. 71.223.15.74 (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

What you did was place an "NPOV" on the entire article rather than the statement you're disputing. That's lazy and it's over the line. If the other editor's factoid is not sourced, you revert it or add a "Needs citation" or "NPOV" tag at the end of that factoid. You don't "NPOV" the entire article. Also, others can't ask you to "go to Talk Page" unless what you are removing is sourced material. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Should Texas Sicilian and German, as well as Pennsylvania German, be listed as regional languages instead of indiginous languages?

If it was brought to America by certain people who immigrated here than it isn't an indiginous language, right? SuperZ1776 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... I see that this article uses {{infobox country languages}} and that that infobox has parameters named for various categories of languages, and that the infobox does not explain the difference between those parameters or their intended usage. I'm guessing that all of the languages mentioned in the heading of this section, and lots of other languages used in the U.S., would be appropriately categorized as immigrant languages. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Cherokee Language

Cherokee is listed as indigenous in the quick facts at the top of the page but then is placed under the sub heading "African, Asian and European languages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.100.109 (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hawaiian Pidgin/English

The section on Hawaiian Pidgin says it is not to be confused with Hawaiian English, providing a separate link. However, "Hawaiian English" simply redirects to the page for Hawaiian Pidgin, the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.62.253 (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Removed. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sylheti language

(1) Sylheti Ministry Leader NYC https://globalgates.info/long-term-missions/sylheti-ministry-leader-metro-new-york/ Slake000 (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(2) Sylhetis were the pioneers in crossing the sea in the Age of Empire. In their voyages, they worked as crewmen on merchant ships, and then began to settle abroad, mainly in Britain and the USA.

The world of the Sylheti seamen in the Age of Empire, from the late eighteenth century to 1947.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-global-history/article/abs/world-of-the-sylheti-seamen-in-the-age-of-empire-from-the-late-eighteenth-century-to-1947/961C8BCA36DD04AE2CC386509BF2C48B Slake000 (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(3) Ref [50] Christine, Gambino (2016). "American Community Survey Redesign of Language-Spoken-at-Home Data, 2016" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau: 25. Slake000 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Map II

I replaced the PNG map with its SVG equivalent, which hasn't been updated as recently. But the most recent edit to the PNG was to add AK, which from what I read above may not be accurate. Could someone update the SVG map, or ping me with instructions if you'd prefer me to do it? — kwami (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

New Mexico should be grey, not light blue, on the official languages map

New Mexico has no official language and was not part of the English-only movement. The information in the article reflects this but the map is incorrect. Desertambition (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The map caption mentions that New Mexico has “de facto” official language status. Going by the article text, this seems to refer to the law giving Spanish equal special protections to equal English, which (by omission) makes those two languages "more official" than other languages, even if not totally official? — Octavo (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Klingon

why cant i add klingon as a american languuage?

Because it isn't one. —Angr 11:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As a constructed language it may have as much right to be here as Esperanto--although even if you could find a citable estimate of fluent Klingon speakers, it would probably be far fewer than that of Esperanto--which itself is lacking a cited estimate, btw. On another score, while Esperanto originates from a Polish Jew in eastern Europe, Klingon comes from Marc Okrand of the good ol' USA. —RVJ 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Castle Island

I'm not sure the one that was near Albany is the same as the one near Boston...? Шизомби 23:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

German myths

Does anyone know if Pennsylvania ever had any official language? Cbdorsett 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

I noticed that some of the sources on this page are a bit dubious....for example, an entire paragraph about German not having been voted on as the official US language is backed by a letter to the editor from http://www.straightdope.com An editor of a website isn't a proper source, right? Petersian 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Straight Dope is a newspaper column that's available online too, not just a website. It's been around for over 30 years in the U.S. and enjoys a reputation for always citing its sources and almost always getting its facts right. As far as I'm concerned, it's a reliable source, though it can't hurt to double-check what it says against other sources as well. —Angr 06:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania does not have an "official" language, but the state has a local form of German for over 300 years. Before the 1950s, large numbers of people in certain areas of Pennsylvania had spoken Pennsylvania Dutch or Pennsdeutch , a dialect of Low German brought over from German settlers in the late 17th and 18th centuries. Some counties and towns throughout Penn. might used Pennsdeutch as a co-official language in printed documents, but the state itself had never declared it a co-official language. Today, only 200,000 people in the state are fluent in Pennsylvania Dutch (German), esp. the Amish or Mennonites in the more rural outskirts in an area bordered by Harrisburg, Reading, Scranton and Norristown. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

English spoken image

There is an image showing each state with varying states of blue showing, presumably, how many people speak english in that state, but there is no key. Does anyone have a key for this image? --BHC 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This one to be specific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:English_USC2000_PHS.svg --BHC 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect "=ROUND(((current_value/maximal_value)*(current_value/maximal_value)*255);0)" is all the explanation you're going to get, unless you ask the image creator at cs:Wikipedista diskuse:Martin Kozák (he speaks English) to be more explicit about what the shades of blue mean. —Angr 07:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mixtec

I didn't see it in the article, but there is a fairly large Mixtec population on the West coast. Mixtec is a language native to Mexico, and there has been a lot of emigration to the U.S. from this group. The numbers of speakers are varied, but I read on a website that there have been 100,000 Mixtec immigrants since 1980 (not sure of the exact date). Anyway, just thought it could be added to the list of languages. 71.193.128.178 06:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)biggoergen

Sure, if you can provide a source. —Angr 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced info removed

I'm removing the following information tagged with {{fact}} for some time:

• [Gullah] is distinct enough to be considered a separate language from English (actually, this hardly needs to be sourced as it is true by definition of all creole languages, but its very obviousness also means it doesn't have to be said in the article at all)
• Although the use of Scottish Gaelic remains minuscule, some American linguists believe the Scottish presence has consistently created regional dialects in the Southern United States.

The second statement sounds like total BS to me, but if anyone can find a source for it, feel free to re-add it. —Angr 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern Languages

What exactly does this article mean by 'modern languages'? The usage here seems to include a semi-random mixture of ex-colonial languages and languages of some immigrant communities. It also seems to imply that languages listed in other sections -- for example, all American Indian languages, and several languages with more speakers in the US than some of the "modern languages" -- are not "modern."

It would be an improvement to name this section something other than "modern languages" (even "major languages" or "widely-spoken languages" would be better), but I think what should really be done is to restructure the whole article. There's a lot of redundancy (double list of languages spoken, double discussion of "major languages" under "languages of colonialism", etc.); some old material like the discussion of federal legislation from last year and a quote by Ed Sapir that's now very anachronistic; graphics and maps that are strange or hard hard to use, etc. Jiashudiwanjin 00:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

American English

Why doesn't this section include American English? Surely American English is the main modern language spoken in USA so should appear at the top of the list?--PeterR 13:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's first in the section "Languages of Colonialism". The article desperately needs reorganizing, though. —Angr 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As i am aware, The use of English in the United States was inherited from British colonization" Then Americans bastardised the english language thus creating a slang. There is no such language called American English, there is English and there is slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter675 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've reorganized the article into three main sections: Indigenous languages, Immigrant languages, and New American languages. The previous section "Modern languages" didn't seem to be serving any purpose, nor did the contrast between "Languages of colonialism" and "Immigrant languages". Colonists are immigrants too. —Angr 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. This reorganization has been needed for a long time. NoIdeaNick 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Italian

Just wanted to say I added the blue map of Italian for easier reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.142.220 (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

One- I really am not sure why Esperanto is here listed. As far as I know, only Westely Snipes actually knows how to speak it, and he does a good job but I still do not see why we need to have this here. It needs a source at least.

Two- The grammar rules of Southern English make it quite distinctive so much so that I feel it needs a specific mention. There is also Louisiana Cajun English which, though spoken using 60% an English lexicon, the grammar is still very French. Unlike Cajun French which seems to go up and down in regards to the number of speakers, Cajun English is increasing.

Three- Along with French, which Cajun French really is, we should also mention the dialect of the Houma Nation which speaks French with French grammar but uses a lot of lexicon from their Native language that they retained from the time before they spoke French. Cajuns and Houma understand about 70% of what each other says.

Four- I know that this is a hotly debated issue but Latin is indeed spoken by a lot of Americans. It may be true that those that speak Latin are usually those that teach it in school and in some of the Very Very conservative monistaries but the fact still exist that Latin is a language spoken in the United States. A lot of Anti-Latin propagandist have tried very hard to sell the idea of Latin as a dead language but it is very likely that far more people speak Latin in those United States then Esperanto and Klingon combined. There are conventions for Latin speakers, weekend camps for Latin speakers and religious meetings for priest where all activities are conducted in Latin. There are a growing number of Latin litterate appearing on the internet, mostly form those United States, that form a significant number of the worldwide Latin speaking population. The number of children learning Latin at home from Mom or Dad is estimated to be about 2000, or at least that is the rumor we keep hearing. If everyone would just stop disrespecting Latin and trying to force it to be a dead language then maybe some real information on the exact numbers that exist will be forthcoming. In any case, I respectfully ask that you add Latin to the list. The last Latin Convention had over 10,000 Latin speakers attend, that has to be enough for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.40.84 (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As a former linguistics student, a "modern language" is one that still has native speakers. A "dead language" is one that stopped being spoken at some point in history. Technically, Latin is not a dead language, because it never really died out, it evolved into several modern languages. It is still not a modern language. I'd be curious to hear of people who speak Latin as a native language today.

To point one: there are definitely real speakers of Esperanto. There are even native speakers of Esperanto, though they are very few. The section could probably stand a citation or two, though.

To point two: I disagree that Southern American English is distinct enough from American English to warrant a special mention. It's no more divergent than the dialects of Eastern New England or New York City.

To point four: If you have reliable sources to cite on the number of Latin speakers, feel free to add it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)